Thanks Bill. Clearly my Google-fu was failing because of plugging in anachronistic terms when searching for a document that is only barely old enough to drive.
-r bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes: > RFC 2182.... > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:57:06PM -0400, Rob Seastrom wrote: >> >> Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> writes: >> >> > On 3/7/2014 5:03 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote: >> > >> >> for decades. i have a vague recollection of an rfc that said >> >> secondary nameservers ought not be connected to the same psn (remember >> >> those?) but my google fu fails me this early in the morning. >> > >> > Packet Switch Node? >> > >> > Not sure what would be in this context. >> > >> > Not on the same router? How about two routers away with both THEM on >> > the same router (a third one)? >> >> A PSN or IMP was an ARPANET/MILNET "core" router. Some sites had more >> than one. A reasonable carry-forward of the concept would be that >> nameservers ought to be geographically and topologically diverse so as >> to avoid fate-sharing. Different upstreams, different coasts (maybe >> different continents?), different covering prefixes, and certainly not >> on the same IPv4 /32... would be the intelligent thing to do >> particularly if one wants to query nanog@ about operational hinkiness >> and not be on the receiving end of derisive chuckles. >> >> > Not on a host that does anything else? >> > >> > Both of those actually make some sense to me, the first from a single >> > point of failure consideration, the second regarding unrelated >> > failures (I have to re-boot my windows PC at least once a day, most >> > days because Firefox, the way I use it, gets itself tangled about that >> > often and a reboot is the quickest way to clear it). >> >> Can't hurt to have authoritative nameservers on dedicated VMs >> (enterprise guys running AD have my sympathies), but that's not what >> we're talking about here. >> >> -r >>